• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Confused on Socionics Type

telarana

New member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
5
MBTI Type
FLEV
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm going back and forth on what my potential Socionics type is... and I think a core issue is that maybe I'm attributing certain behaviors/values to certain IMEs when they might be other ones?

I'm going to list each IME with rationale for and against why I might value it, which is a different way than I've attempted typing in Socionics before, so maybe I can at least get a concrete sense of what quadra I'm in, and what elements I may be weak or strong in.

For Ni:
Ever since I was a kid I've had a well-developed inner mental landscape, although I don't play in it as much as I did then. I've never had a problem predicting what consequences my actions might have, and usually can easily predict the course of how an action will turn out or how people will behave, and generally it comes true. I also have very specific visions of how I'd like things to turn out and then eventually direct them into being.

Against Ni:
Sometimes I can experience anxiety if I don't know what will completely happen or if there's doubt. I usually like to have a firm idea of what I want to accomplish, vision-wise, even if it changes further down the line. And it makes me very uncomfortable to be in a space in which I can't predict that. Also sometimes I experience *too* many ideas of how something will play out, and although I can usually tell a predicted pattern (although it's usually based off of the situation in the moment, so if things are going well I'll project well, and if things are going bad or there's a red flag I'll predict bad), sometimes it's hard for me to stop flipping between different perspectives to really narrow one down. It's like my brain will see one most likely possibility, narrow in on it for a second, and then reject it and say "Well maybe it could be this, or maybe it could be this, or maybe it'll turn out this way... we don't really know," and then it widens back up again.

For Ne:
I usually have no problem seeing broad overall patterns, getting the gist of things, understanding common hidden nuance within things, being able to read others hidden intentions or motives, being able to read behind the lines, and looking at multiple possibilities for ways that something can unfold or opportunities that may spring up. I also have no problem seeing how very different conceptual ideas are connected to one another on a broad scale.

Against Ne:
I'd never call a brainstormer or "random," if those are things attached to Socionics' idea of Ne. Though sometimes I do have the issue of rapid-fire talking and/or thinking because I think and pick up things so quickly and so it can be hard for people to keep up with my thoughts and connections. I generally like to narrow down my conclusions and decide on things more so than leave things open-ended. The reason why my brain tends to narrow in on a solution and then re-widen it up is because it wants to search every possibility in order to fully explore it and eliminate it so I have a perfect understanding of whatever concept or system I'm working on, and I don't have to revise it very much when I eventually get new information. I do want to do a lot of things and explore a lot of different areas in life, but I still would eventually like to have a few that I focus in on as far as where I'm trying to get to in life.

For and against Si:
I don't really feel connected to Si at all in MBTI or in Socionics but... I suppose I *am* capable of comfort, do enjoy engaging in pleasant sensations, and am really good about having an aesthetic eye for things such as fashion or what colors go together well. But it's not something that I focus on or consider top priority. I actually mostly ignore my sense of comfort or homeostasis, bodily needs, and physical health until I need to and am forced to focus in on it. And then I can do it pretty well, but it's not something that I'd ever really consider valuable or interesting of my own. Still, I do like friends who seem to be skilled in this area. They generally can help improve my living space and daily routine and stuff just by assisting me with small details in this area with things I didn't consider. Like if I'm uncomfortable whenever I sit on my couch but I just work on it without really thinking about or noticing my discomfort and then suddenly they replace it with a new couch and I realize that was the source of it and I could've done that all along... Or when I'm really hungry or tired but really focused on whatever I'm trying to do/have to get done and then they just take care of making me food. I usually really appreciate those things and find it an act of caring and concern, especially since I don't consider myself especially skilled in those areas myself.

For Se:
I feel like I value ambition, drive, and pushing against resistance to get things done. I don't value sugar-coating or niceties or comfort much, whether mental, physical, or otherwise. I like people who challenge systems, challenge people's way of thinking, and who go against the grain and who aren't afraid of conflict if it's what needed at that time. I'm not a huge fan of physical conflict or confrontation when I see it (and I've never had a fight myself and would never; I hate pain. I mostly like fighting by out-smarting/taking psychological advantage of my opponents). But I feel like it has to serve a purpose. If you're just fighting just to fight or just to see who's stronger than the other... what's the point?

Against Se:
I'm not particularly into people who seem to chase power or leadership in that sense of ambition. I don't feel like I value it and don't feel I'd be around people like that because they'd just feel rather boring or obnoxious. I also do have an issue with seeing too black and white or linear sometimes. Like sometimes I forgot to see other sides of an equation until my friends point things out to me. But I always see the act of attempt to look at different perspectives and different sides of an equation to be valuable. And I think that you should always look back over your decisions to make sure you didn't consider something too hasty without thinking about different options or jump into something without having a way back out. Though sometimes I specifically have to check with friends to try and do that myself.

For Ti:
I love figuring things out. I like mentally deconstructing things (usually concepts and ideas, sometimes patterns in the environment or in society, or sometimes hidden inner potential motivations within people or the way that people's minds work) and analyzing their inner workings and putting it all back together to see how it applies to the world so I can have a fully constructed system together in my head of how everything works. It makes it easier to problem solve and eventually to make flexible decisions and conclusions that seem well-thought out and rational.

I don't always have logical consistency in my thoughts, but usually not having consistency of any kind (in my ethical or logical internal systems) really bugs me the wrong way and eventually I'll keep reworking the system and exploring the data that I've collected and will go out and collect more until I feel I have a full understanding of the system that isn't completely full of holes and that I can thoroughly explain to someone else if asked. Like I said earlier, I like having things fully decided and figured out and I'm not as much a fan of leaving things open-ended.

Against Ti:
Usually I seem to use my technique of refining everything to be logically consistent when I have a need for something. So if I'm trying to understand a concept in order to utilize it. Or if I'm trying to create a better mechanism for how to do stuff or how to get stuff done. Otherwise I generally care more about the function of the thing and whether it works well for its defined purpose and I can gloss over the inner workings of a thing if I'm focusing on other things, like getting stuff done, especially if I need to do it in a timely manner. When I have the luxury I focus in on logical consistency and it'll bug me if something isn't logically consistent, but at the same time I care more about whether something functions within and is realistic to reality rather than whether it makes sense perfectly within itself as a system or not.

For Te:
I've never had a problem figuring out how to get stuff done, figuring out how to do something, gathering information, prioritizing things that need to be done, being responsible in general, figuring out a basic blueprint and gameplan for how things are going to work, organizing systems and people so that it functions best and then modifying it at need to achieve better results, being concerned about maintaining top efficiency and tossing out an idea that doesn't work, narrating and organizing my inner thoughts in a logical sequence that is understandable to my audience and makes sense, and supporting myself with facts (either researched and considered factual by experts and common consensus, or raw data from the external environment itself).

Against Te:
Not really much against Te honestly. Sometimes I don't care about efficiency if I'm stuck in exploration or creativity mode.

For Fi:
I care about my relationships and connections intensely. I rarely let people in to my close circle, so when I do they're highly trusted, and I care about them a lot, attempt to express my affection (though I may not express it openly), am open and honest and blunt about my emotions if asked (though rarely do I compliment people or openly speak about liking/disliking people if I'm not asked; I also am mostly neutral on people than polar towards either side), and I can be quite loyal even if my friends and I don't speak for years.

Against Fi:
Outside of about three close friends I'm pretty distant with mostly everyone. I have no interest in engaging with people on a close level or even making increased friends. The only time that I go out of my way to make new friends are when I'm running low on social friends or out of a 'social circle' (cause i've moved to a new place or cause my friends went distant) so I socialize like crazy, make tons of new friends, enjoy hanging out with new people, make tons of connections, and then choose who I want as my main social circle and go back to not really caring about making new friends or connections anymore. I engage with everyone on a polite, equal distance and don't differentiate most people into mine or other - they're mostly just neutral. I don't have very strong opinions on most people or most things. And I'm relatively emotionally disengaged until I'm putting on social airs and hyping up the emotional atmosphere for entertainment/fun.

For Fe:
I am quite emotionally expressive. When I was younger I was a bit less emotionally expressive and then suddenly I just got really animated as I got older. When not at work/when in comfortable company, I can be animated, entertaining, high-energy, playful, talkative, and I can amp up the emotional tone in the room or downplay it for emotional effect. I generally like to entertain people. I sometimes say things for dramatic effect or for reactions. But generally I prefer being more truthful and blunt and direct. My humor is mostly dry and sarcastic so a lot of people can't tell when I'm joking. And I speak in a monotone voice a lot of the times when not attempting to entertain or amp up the emotional energy.

Against Fe:
I can get grated by someone attempting to persuade me to join in with the fun or the group if I don't know them or if I dont want to engage (which is the usual case). I feel awkward and just smile or chuckle politely mostly, but if I am pressed, I usually push back pressure wise and firmly assert my boundaries and that I will not be participating and most people back off. I can be confrontative and combative and destroy the social atmosphere when I have to be. I usually am aware of the emotional environment and find it better to go along with the vibes. I also think it's the most effective way to get stuff done is if people feel comfortable with you and like you. But I don't find it much more essential or interesting other than its use as a tool to make things more efficient or for social harmony and maintaining relations, and I'm not able to change the energy flow of a room or sway someone's emotions towards one way or another. It's more likely that if a person is exuding negative energy (like if they're mopey or really angry or crying) and I can't really DO anything constructive about it like problem solve... I'll probably just feel awkward and walk away because I don't want their negative emotional energy to rub off on me because that's really unpleasant. Sometimes if it's a friend I'd try to cheer them up but otherwise I would mostly abstain from dealing with it.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,847
MBTI Type
NiFe
Enneagram
6
That's a weird take on Se. I guess it's typical of socionics?

I think you're an ENFP.
 

telarana

New member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
5
MBTI Type
FLEV
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
That's a weird take on Se. I guess it's typical of socionics?

I think you're an ENFP.
Yes Socionics Se and Si are very different than MBTI versions. Or even the original Jungian ones. Fe and Fi are also a little different. This is why people can end up other types in these two systems.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,847
MBTI Type
NiFe
Enneagram
6
Yes Socionics Se and Si are very different than MBTI versions. Or even the original Jungian ones. Fe and Fi are also a little different. This is why people can end up other types in these two systems.
I don't believe in being different types in different systems.

It's possible for 2 different descriptions to focus on differing aspects of a function but they should ultimately be describing the same thing.
 

telarana

New member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
5
MBTI Type
FLEV
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't believe in being different types in different systems.

It's possible for 2 different descriptions to focus on differing aspects of a function but they should ultimately be describing the same thing.
Yeah I disagree. I don't think "differing perspectives" describe why some of the IMEs have radically different descriptions in Socionics than the cognitive functions in MBTI.

I also think there are clear characters in fiction for instance than can be typed differently under each system. Which is something that should be impossible if these are only "different perspectives describing the same thing."

There are also checks that come into account in Socionics confirming one's typing that MBTI simply lacks. Such as quadras, PoLR, intertype relations, Reinen dichotomies, etc. There are types that exist in Socionics that don't in MBTI. For instance, ESI. No MBTI matches up perfectly to an ESI in Socionics. And if you say an ISFP does, you'd be incorrect because one ISFP might map out to be SEI (an Alpha) whereas another might be an ESI or even an SEE (both Gammas, which have contradictory values from Alphas and behaviorally would look quite distinct).

I don't think it's as cut and dry as saying "every ENFP = IEE in Socionics". They could be EIE, IEI, EII, IEE, even ILE or SEE tbh.

But thank you for your response. I simply think it's uninformed to be posting on a Socionics typing if you don't even seem to know how Se differs between systems.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,847
MBTI Type
NiFe
Enneagram
6
@telerana

There is only one true system of 16 types.

If the 2 systems contradict, then one or both are simply invalid.

You're defining the systems based on their descriptions without taking into account that there is an underlying reality that both systems are trying to describe.
 

telarana

New member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
5
MBTI Type
FLEV
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
@telerana

There is only one true system of 16 types.

If the 2 systems contradict, then one or both are simply invalid.

You're defining the systems based on their descriptions without taking into account that there is an underlying reality that both systems are trying to describe.
I don't think that reality can be defined by a theoretical system correctly or in full at all. That's why it's a theory. Reality is a lot more complex than that.

But if you look at the systems themselves... in fact if you look at ANY typology system, concluding that they're the same simply because they use the same terminology, the same symbol descriptors, originated from the same source, or are attempting to describe similar processes is really simplified and in this case just entirely incorrect. Socionics and MBTI originated from the theories that Jung produced--and then they both deviated from there and decided to do their own thing, which is why they evolved into something entirely different from each other. They're also not as large within the same cultural/geographical areas, and so the population base that they have based their research off of is also different. MBTI has had several schools of thought branch off from this in an attempt to create further accuracy for this reason. And so has Socionics. There are many schools of thought within Socionics, several different models, and over 50 years worth of material fleshing out Socionics and expanding on its theory. The evolution and development of the systems over time makes them distinct and different in and of themselves tbh. Plus I find MBTI full of a lot of holes logical consistency-wise that Socionics has attempted to fill. Which is why you can cross-check someone's type a lot easier in Socionics than you can in MBTI. However, the flaw for Socionics on the other hand is that it's much harder to map onto a realistic population because it is so based in theory vs practical applicability and skills within the work environment, as the MBTI assessment was originally created for.

So all I'm saying, is that attempting to type someone based off of knowledge in one system and presuming that it'll map perfectly into the other system doesn't really make much sense, and may give you an entirely inaccurate result.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,847
MBTI Type
NiFe
Enneagram
6
@telarana

If you don't believe in the reality of type, I don't see the point in having this conversation.
 
Top